Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-10-29

the accused, such promise must be posi-
tive, and must be made or sanctioned
by person in authority, and must be
Of such character as would be
likely to influence the accused to speak
truthfully. If the confession is made
under the influence OF the fear OF legal
punishment, such fear of itself does not
render the confession lnadmissible l9 G.
&. 500 |. The court below charged the
jury that the confession should be coz
sidered as evidence, il the defendant
therein had made statements that were
otherwise found to be true with relation
to the commission OF the offense. This
charge was promp ~ excepted 10 on the
ground that here WAS no evidence to
warrant it. Held: On examination we
fail to find particle OF testimony even
tending to show that any material or
even immaterial fact connected with the
theft was discovered in consequence
of the information obtained from de-
fendant's confession. For this error in
the Charge the case must be reversed.
Reversed and remanded Wilson, j.
3. +. Rose vs.. the State; appeal from
Wilson. Where an application for con-
tinuance shows that the testimony Of the
absent witnesses is merely cumulative, it
is not error to override motion for 8
continuance. Affirmed Wilson, J.
james Burns VS.. the State; appeal from
Gopzales Where q motion for n contin-
ueuce is asked on the ground OF the ab-
seDce OF witness whose testimony is
manifestly untrue, this court will refuse
to revise the action Of the court below in
everything the same. No reversible error.
Affirmed. Wilson, J.
Bill Brumley VS.. the State; appeal from
Wise. The appellant was the bailee OF a
horse belonging to one Hoffman. Appel
LIANT took the horse to the Indian
Nation and converted him TO
MS own use and benz fit.
Il is urgently insisted by counsel for ap-
pellant that the District court of Wise
county did not have Jurisdiction to try
this case. Held: That said court did
have Jurisdiction is well settled. 20 c.
a. 234, % c. A. PA Affirmed. VIII,
son,J.
Andrew Miller VS.. the State; sppeal
from McLennan. Where q motion for G
continuance was made and Overruled IL
the court below, and no bill Of exceptions
taken, this court will not consider the
assignment of error on this point. The
evidence and charge were sufficient
Affirmed Wilson, j.
b Cyphers VS.. the Stste; appeal from
Polk. A proposed Juror WAS asked
care you satisfied after hearing this case
discussed st the Preside as you say, ant
having then formed and expressed en-
opinion about the guilt or Innocence o
the defendant, and that opinion being
now revived in your mind, since
you have required to it, that you cal
leave that opinion out side OF the Jur,
box, and not be at all Influenced By it?'
Juror replied: "It would take evidence
Of course, to remove the opinion / have
have some doubts about it," He VS.
asked what he meant By having doubt
about it He replied: swell, l dom
know; have heard SO much about 1t,
might influence my verdict, but L dom
think it will" Held: There was n
error in the Court sustaining the state
challenge to this juror. Affirmed. VIII
son, J
Albert Smith VS.. the State; sppes
from Cooke; conviction fer THEFT tror
the person. Where there is no state
, ment Of tscts nor bill of exceptions, an
there is no fundamental error apparent
tois Court Will not disturb the indgmen
of the CourG below. No error.
L. D. Brumley VS.. the State, appat
: from Wise. This is 6 conviction for r;
, moving mortgaged property Gus 0! Ii
: state. Counsel fer the appellsntf
that there being no proof to show tn:
5 appellant WAS ever cut of TIN. state, fh:
therefore a conviction csnnot stant
! Held: The proof is evident that the pro
/ perry mortgaged WAS moved out Of To
) state, and il matters not whether sppeI
liant actually went or not. if he was ii
s;rumental in having the same removed
The testimony sustatns the verdict an
r Judgment. Affirmed. Wilson, j.